5 iv) It is true that they have requested that permanent security measures should not be provided to the family of María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño, but this does not mean that the beneficiary does not require other material measures of protection, owing to her situation as an intra-urban displaced person and her high level of vulnerability, and v) The State has disregarded the Court’s order that it adopt the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries; investigate the facts that put them at risk, prosecuting and punishing those responsible, and adopt the necessary measures to ensure such facts cease and are not repeated. CONSIDERING: 1. That Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention establishes that “in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” at the request of the Commission, the Court may adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, in matters that are not yet submitted to its consideration. 3. That, in this regard, Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”) establishes that: 1. At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 2. With respect to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. [...] 4. That, under domestic legal systems (domestic procedural law) in general, the purpose of provisional measures is to preserve the rights of the parties in dispute, ensuring that the judgment on merits is not prejudiced or prevented by their actions pendente lite. 5. That, under international human rights law, provisional measures are not merely preventive, in that they preserve a juridical situation, but rather they are essentially protective, since they protect human rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Provided that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons are met, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.1 Cf. Matter of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2006, fifth considering paragraph; Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional measures, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph; Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, sixth considering paragraph. 1